Texas Parks and Wildlife CommissionConservation Committee

Jan. 28, 2004

BE IT REMEMBERED, that
heretofore on the 28th day
of January, 2004, there
came on to be heard matters
under the regulatory authority
of the Parks and Wildlife
Commission of Texas, in
the Commission Hearing Room
of the Texas Parks and Wildlife
Department Headquarters
Complex, to wit:

APPEARANCES:

THE TEXAS PARKS AND WILDLIFE
COMMISSION:

Joseph B.C. Fitzsimons,
San Antonio, Texas

J. Robert Brown, El
Paso, Texas

Ned S. Holmes, Houston,
Texas

Alvin L. Henry, Houston,
Texas

Philip Montgomery, Dallas,
Texas, Chairman

John D. Parker, Lufkin,
Texas

Mark E. Watson, Jr.,
San Antonio, Texas

THE TEXAS PARKS AND WILDLIFE
DEPARTMENT:

Robert L. Cook, Executive
Director, and other personnel
of the Texas Parks and Wildlife
Department

P R O C E E D I N G S

MR. MONTGOMERY: Okay, Conservation
Committee. The first order
of business is the approval
of minutes. Motion?

MR. HOLMES: So moved,

MR. HENRY: Second.

MR. HOLMES: All in favor?

(A chorus of ayes)

MR. MONTGOMERY: Okay, Item
Number 1, Chairman's Charges
is Bob Cook.

MR. COOK: Mr. Chairman,
thank you. As again, I won't
spend a lot of time on this,
because we've been over
this a couple of times.
The bulk of the Chairman's
charges in the Conservation
Committee are directly connected
to and associated with the
Land and Water Plan, and
we are sincere about the
implementation and effectiveness
of that plan. And we are
headed in that direction
full speed, sir, with your
help and guidance. Thank
you.

MR. MONTGOMERY: Okay. Well,
I'm going to discuss some
of these with you so I understand
them all. But I've read
them.

Okay, we have the Land
and Water Plan update by
Scott Boruff and Gene McCarty.

MR. BORUFF: Mr. Chairman,
Commissioners, my name is
Scott Boruff, Deputy Executive
Director, Operations. We're
going to talk to you today
about the update on our
Land and Water Conservation
and Recreation Plan Implementation
Project that we have underway.

Senate Bill 305 was passed
in the legislative session
in 2001, which directed
the agency to look at putting
together a ten-year comprehensive
plan for how they would
move forward with the primary
activities of the agency.
The Commission decided to
charter this activity, and
we came up with what was
called the Land and Water
Resource Conservation Plan,
and we're going to talk
about that here today.

This committee was authorized
by you in November of 2001
following the legislative
session where Senate Bill
305 was passed. The Commission
identified three priorities
as we went forward with
trying to establish the
Land and Water Resource
Conservation Plan. One is
to clearly identify and
elucidate the role in providing
recreational opportunities
and conserving natural resources.
The second was to look at
and determine threats to
natural resources. And of
course third, per Senate
Bill 305, to develop processes
and standards to determine
the needs of the agency
for the next decade.

There's a pretty picture
of the plan, and I hope
all of you are in possession
of one. If you're not, please
let us know and we'll get
you one immediately.

Clearly, we talked to a
lot of different folks as
we went forward in trying
to establish this plan.
Obviously, leadership, yourselves,
and the legislators downtown.
We had quite a number of
employees, and I will tell
you that this was a cross-divisional
effort that involved all
the divisions of the agency
as we moved forward to try
to put this on paper. We
reached out pretty aggressively
to our partners and non-governmental
organizations, and other
governmental organizations,
and other constituents,
interested users out there
in the community.

And ultimately, in what
probably is record turnaround
time, in one year we put
together this plan. So it
was chartered in November
of 2001 and was adopted
by this Commission in November
of last year, 2002.

In the plan, there were
several major goals and
objectives, obviously, to
improve access to the outdoors,
which has been a longstanding
commitment of this Commission,
to preserve, manage and
operate a complete system
of historic sites, to increase
support generally around
the state for conservation
and recreation on private
and public lands. You might
notice that the word public
is not in there, and we'll
talk about that in just
a second.

To increase hunting and
fishing participation throughout
the state, to improve fishing
conditions, and the opportunity
to fish. This is a very
important one: to improve
our science and data collection
process, and we'll talk
about how some of these
have been implemented in
just a minute. But this
has been a major focus of
our Executive Director and
this Commission for several
years now. We currently
do have a science review
underway, and I'm going
to talk a little bit more
about that in a minute.

Another major goal was
to maintain sufficient water
quality and quantity, to
support the needs of game
and fish and recreation.

It was interesting, because
as we put this plan together,
much of what fell out were
things that we were already
doing in the agency. And
so one of the things I want
to make clear is that, as
you read through the Land
and Water Conservation Plan,
a lot of what you see has
already been going on in
this agency for some time
in different forms and fashions.

As I mentioned a minute
ago, probably one of our
more higher profile activities
is currently we have a Science
Review Project underway,
being headed up by Dr. Larry
McKinney, now with the Coastal
Fisheries Division. This
is a resource-wide — and
by that I mean all the resource
divisions are participating
in this Science Review Project
where we will be going out
and looking for third-party
reviewers. In fact, I think
the project is well underway.
We anticipate having the
first phase of this project
completed this summer. But
we will have outside organizations
come in and look at our
methodology for the collection
of scientific data.

We have begun long-term
studies of water quality,
aquatic life and habitat
and coastal tidal streams,
primarily through the Coastal
Fisheries and Resource Protection
Divisions. We are aggressively
implementing the Sea Grass
Conservation Plan, which
had been — I think
it's a two or three year
old plan. Is that right
Bob? — had already
been in place, but was embraced
under this plan.

I think Mr. Durocher just
explained to you the Freshwater
Fishing Stamp for inland
fish hatchery restoration.
We were directed in the
last legislative session
to spend some money to research
causes for, and control
mechanisms for, golden algae
through Golden Algae Task
Force. That task force is
being headed up from our
end of the spectrum from
Dr. McKinney and Mr. Durocher
in the Coastal and Inland
Fisheries group. They've
had, I think, two meetings
to date, and that process
is coming along well. Obviously,
the idea there is to try
to figure out where golden
algae comes from and what
we can do about it. And
so we're doing that as directed
by the legislature.

Senate Bill 155, which
was the River Conservation
bill, passed last session,
which precludes the use
of, for example, it precludes
the use of four-wheel drive
vehicles in stream beds.
However, it does give local
municipalities or counties
opportunity to create a
plan under which such utilization
would be permitted, so there
is a way for local communities
to be able to work through
that.

We, for the first time
ever, have had water rights
transferred to the Texas
Water Trust, which is a
big deal for us, of some
1,236 acres, which is consistent
with the Land and Water
Conservation Plan.

We have added to both our
Parks and Wildlife management
areas. We've put four of — we've
certainly had more than
these, but in the plan,
there were several criteria
for adding land to our current
inventory, and those included
things like being contiguous
to existing parks, being
consistent with the triangle
created by Dallas, Houston
and San Antonio, in terms
of the central location
of these facilities.

And as you can see, there
are some examples where
we've added 60 acres of
riverfront property in Dinosaur
Valley State Park, almost
1,200 acres to Government
Canyon, 140 acres in Bastrop
County, which is a critical
toad habitat, and another
291 acres to Mission Tejas.
There are others. We'd be
glad to get you a full listing
if you're interested in
those.

We have initiated permitting
plans to add approximately
33,000 acres to TPWD holding
for I-69 mitigation. You'll
be hearing some more about
this in detail in Executive
Session later, I think.

This is an important one:
in 2001, as of the date
the plan was passed, there
were some 9.7 million acres
under Wildlife Management
Plans. That figure has grown
in the two years since the
implementation of the plan
to 14.5 million acres — almost
a 50 percent increase.

A little clarification
there before, because you
may have heard some different
numbers. In the Wildlife
Division, there are two
kinds of ways we give — well,
there are many kinds of
ways we give support, but
there are two documents
we use to direct habitat
activities on land, private
lands, here in the state.

The Wildlife Management
Plan is a plan which is
signed by the landowner,
which outlines specific
activities that they are
committed to in order to
get the increased bags and
extended seasons, which
we discussed earlier. They
also have the opportunity,
if they do not wish to sign
a commitment like that,
to simply get some technical
recommendations. And those
are a separate kind of plan.
In the past, we had mixed
those numbers together — the
Wildlife Management Plans
and the Technical Guidance
Plans. In order to track
those and have more clarification
for you, we're now going
to be reporting to you those
numbers independently.

So the Wildlife Management
Plans have indeed been our
measure for success with
the private lands group,
and trying to support and
encourage folks to do good
conservation. So this is,
I think, a good number for
us, to show us that we have
come a long way in just
two years in adding properties
under Wildlife Management
Plans.

So there's a lot of things
going on. There's a lot
of things that we've done
to implement the plan. We
are currently in an aggressive
strategic approach, trying
to update the Land and Water
Conservation Plan. As we
went back and looked at
our strategic planning process,
the decision was made by
the Chairman and Mr. Cook
to use this plan — the
Land and Water Conservation
Plan — to be our tactical
kind of strategic operating
plan for the future, both
short-term and long-term.

To that end, we know that
we're going to have to update
it occasionally. We have
gone back and done a pretty
significant review of the
plan. And there are some
gaps that we've already
identified. For example,
there's a lot of language
in the plan about supporting
good conservation on private
lands. I mentioned that
earlier. There's not much
language in there about
doing the same on our own
public lands. Obviously,
that's probably a given,
but we thought it would
be good to go back and put
those words in the plan,
for example.

So we've done a couple
things. One is, we have
a Natural Leaders Project
for the new commissioners.
Each year we pick some of
the cream of the crop out
of the agency and we put
together Natural Leader
Projects, which are focused
on teaching folks some good
leadership skills, but at
the same time, providing
a benefit for the agency.

We've taken two of those
Natural Leaders groups and
put them on this project.
They are currently putting
together focus groups statewide,
which we will go out and
talk to, both our own staff
and constituent partner
groups, as to what they
think might should be added
to the plan, or subtracted,
or whatever. We obviously
will prepare a final project
report once that is completed.

At the instruction of this
group and our Executive
Director, we want to keep
this plan relevant. We want
this to be the plan that
both those of us here in
Austin, and the field staff,
refer to and use as a guiding
document as they try to
make decisions about programs
and budgets and other things
that impact the agency.

I might point out that
the Land and Water Conservation
and Recreation Plan is pretty
ambitious. For example,
it envisions us opening,
or at least acquiring, or
developing, at least three
new 5,000-acre parks in
the heart of Texas, where
land values are extremely
expensive. The agency has
no funds at this time to
accomplish those kinds of
acquisitions. We are looking
at mitigation funds as potential.
But it's pretty clear to
those of us in Operations,
at least, that we're not
going to be able to do everything
all at once that the plan
envisions, and therefore,
we have taken serious the
Chairman's charges, because
in our view, the Chairman's
charges kind of tell us
what we should be doing
now, given what resources
we have today.

Obviously, we want to link
these activities with the
Natural Agenda, and for
the new commissioners, again,
the Natural Agenda is the
name of our agency's strategic
plan that is developed to
give the Legislative Budget
Board and other state agencies
information that allows
them to appropriate our
funds. So it is seen by
the state as our strategic
plan, and there has been
a little confusion because
it is mandated by the state
as our strategic plan. And
therefore, we have started
calling the Land and Water
Plan our tactical plan,
just to keep those two separate.
But obviously they need
to be closely related. We'd
be working with Ms. Fields
and her staff to make sure
we're not headed off two
different directions with
those plans.

Probably the most important
piece of this is going to
be the development of division-based
operating plans which link
back to the Land and Water
Conservation Plan. We're
looking here for the division
to be able to prioritize
the business activities,
day-to-day business activities,
in a way that's consistent
with the top priorities
in the Land and Water Conservation
Plan.

That's it. I'll be glad
to answer any questions
if there are any.

MR. MONTGOMERY: Any questions
or discussion?

MR. HENRY: Yes, one comment.
I think it's important — Scott
knows I kept waiting for
it — particularly
with the new commissioners,
to say that one of the ideas
that the committee itself
had with regard to particularly
the purchase of these new
facilities that you're talking
about, had to do with that
I-35-45-10 triangle, and
the location of major park
areas near major urban areas
of the majority population
areas of the state itself.
And I just want to be sure
that we continue to focus
on that, because it's recognized
that in other areas of the
state, particularly west
of I-35, we have any number — not
that we have enough, but
we have any number of sizable
parks, where particularly
east of I-35, there are
very few, given the populations
that exist there in north
Texas, or east Texas or
south Texas. And we identified
those areas and the Laredo
metropolitan area, if you
will, as areas of great
need.

MR. BORUFF: Well said.
Yes, sir. That is correct.

MR. MONTGOMERY: Any questions
or discussion?

MR. FITZSIMONS: Well, I
guess all of you have heard
me say this before, but
I take this plan seriously.
This is what we're supposed
to do, and if there's something
in here we're not going
to do, we either need to
say so or change it. And
you'll notice in the first
part of the Regulations
Committee, and also in the
Conservation, those seven
items you saw, the bullet
points, in the beginning,
of what we're testing against
every time we have something
come before us. At least
that's what I want us to
get in the habit of doing,
is testing against that.
Is it improving outdoor
access? Is it improving
fishing? And so that we
don't get off the mission
here. So good job reminding
us.

MR. BORUFF: I might just
add one thing which was
very encouraging. As you
know, and for the new commissioners,
I spent quite a bit of time
out if the field talking
to our field staff, and
when we were going through
the early parts of this
process, looking at strategic
planning in combination
with the plan we do with
Mary Fields' shop, the comments
I got back pretty regularly
from folks is, I thought
we already had a strategic
plan called the Land and
Water Conservation and Recreation
Plan. So there is good recognition
and acknowledgment out in
the field that this is a
plan that means something
and can be a document that
will mean something over
the next decade.

MR. FITZSIMONS: It's really
handy when you're stumped
for an answer. You can just
open it and start reading.

MR. MONTGOMERY: Any more
discussion or questions?

(No response)

MR. MONTGOMERY: Thank you,
gentlemen.

We have Item Number 3,
Oil and Gas Nomination.
Jack Bauer?

MR. BAUER: Good morning,
Commissioners. My name is
Jack Bauer, Director of
Land Conservation. We have
for your consideration oil
and gas lease at Sheldon
State Park. I wanted for
the new commissioners to
relay the process for minerals.
We hold a fairly special
relationship with the Land
Office and the Land Commissioner.
The Land Office has the
authority to lease minerals
on all state lands, and
in most instances the agencies
that own those lands are
not asked. The GLO just
does their job in leasing
minerals. But on Parks and
Wildlife lands, the Land
Commissioner has always
requested input from this
agency, and we always bring
these items to you to make
a recommendation to the
board for lease.

Sheldon Lake State Park
is in Harris County. It
originally was developed
as a wildlife management
area, but the city grew
up around it, and it has
since been converted for
use as a state park. And
the department has invested
funds to improve the capital
facilities there to really
stress outreach and education,
and Commissioner Henry has
been very, very out in front
of that effort.

And we have for today consideration
of six tracts for lease
approaching about 2,000
acres, and so as to be consistent
with that recreational use
of a pretty special place,
we would suggest that we
recommend to the Land Office
that we nominate for lease,
but only with offsite drilling.

And I would say that, typical
of the terms that we use
for leases, we're recommending
a bonus bid of $150 per
acre, 25 percent royalty,
and $10 per acre delay

rental for a three-year
term. Non-typical, and we're
presuming from what we have
done at other — in
the past at Sheldon, is
we

have — Mr. Henry
has suggested that revenues
from this lease be turned
back around to help develop
the site under their new
capital program, and we
would offer that that's
what we have done in past
leases at Sheldon, and if
the Commission so chooses,
that's what we'll do here.

So in that regard, if that
were the case, the way you
wanted to go, the motion
that you would see tomorrow
would reflect that the last
line near the income from
the bonus bid and delay
rental will be dedicated
to Sheldon Lake State Park,
and this action will not
be considered a precedent.
Yes, sir?

MR. HENRY: May I speak
to that particular group
of commissioners? When the
Commission decided — and
you're going to hear some
more about this later in
the Outreach Report — to
develop the Environmental
Learning Center at Sheldon,
we were authorized to, in
conjunction with the foundation,
to draft a fundraising plan
and enter into a fundraising
activity to build these
facilities. And a request
was made at that time to
use any bonus bid and delay
rental fees for Sheldon
where part of that fundraising
effort — to enhance
that fundraising effort
that was there, along with
a special legislative appropriation
of some $2.5 million that
had been made previously.
And that was the reason
for the exception, or to
that rule, that the Commission
granted.

MR. HENRY: And I'll report
a little later on this at
the Outreach Committee.

MR. BAUER: The other lease
we have is at Village Creek
State Park. We have 200
acres that are internal
to the park that is recommended
for lease. Of course, Village
Creek is north of Beaumont.
Very popular park. You see
a design of the tract that's
being nominated for lease,
and again, because of the
high habitat values here,
we would recommend that
there be no surface entry
for the drilling. Same rates
as at the other lease — $150
per acre, 25 percent royalty,
and $10 per acre delay rental.

Would be happy to answer
any questions.

MR. MONTGOMERY: Any discussion
or questions?

(No response)

MR. MONTGOMERY: I know
if Ernest Angelo were here,
he would tell us that we
were running up the cost
of that well to the state — the
net cost — and ask
whether there's any place
to put those rigs on the
site so they can drill straight.
Have you carefully considered
that? Do you feel like we've
got to go offsite to make
it this time?

MR. BAUER: I think at Village
Creek, we do. Actually,
at Sheldon there is probably
some of our staff that feel
like they could provide
an adequate location there,
and it probably would improve
the revenue stream. So there
again, we can do that at
Sheldon, if you folks would
like. It would be —

MR. MONTGOMERY: More money
for capital improvements.

MR. HENRY: Darn right.

MR. FITZSIMONS: It all
depends on what the geology
is to that lessee. I mean,
if he has a pool unit where
he wants to be horizontal,
fine for us, right?

MR. BAUER: Yes, sir.

MR. FITZSIMONS: What happens
when the recommendation
comes back that the lessee
says, That's not an appropriate
site for pool unit for horizontal
well. I've got to be vertical
onsite. Do we then negotiate
substandards?

Mr. BAUER: Well, what we
have — if you recall,
we did Eagle Mountain Lake
the last time, and what
we did there is you all
approved a statement kind
of like, Location of any
potential drill pad will
be left at the discretion
of staff, where we could
either approve it or not
approve it.

MR. FITZSIMONS: What's
your back-up position if
the operator comes back
and says, I can't do a horizontal
unit?

MR. BAUER: At Sheldon,
we'll give him a spot. At
this property, it would
probably be pretty devastating
to habitat.

MR. FITZSIMONS: So they
have to come back again?

MR. MONTGOMERY: How would
everyone feel about leaving
that latitude with the Executive
Director making that decision,
because if we can get more
revenue without harming
our parks.

MR. COOK: I think it's
a good idea, because like
at Sheldon, there are some
of those segments that we
would not want. I mean,
there's standing water maybe
over the entire site, but
there are some options at
Sheldon where there's basically
there's farming operation
going on now, where we can
get in without — you
know, access is one of the
issues, too — that
we don't have to have rigs
coming in and out right
by our main facilities.
But I bet you we can find
some good possibilities
at Sheldon, but not Village
Creek.

MR. MONTGOMERY: I think
we ought to leave that to
your discretion.

MR. BAUER: I don't know — I
guess from a legal standpoint,
we're past that commission
item, and how what we can
do here to go back and change
that. But if you would like
for Sheldon to —

MS. BRIGHT: On this particular
item — on this very
specific, particular item — the
fact that we're past the
agenda item, that's not
going to be a problem. I
mean, you're not taking
action on this item until
tomorrow.

MR. BAUER: So if I understand
correctly, on the Sheldon
item, we will have language
in it that will reflect
that any potential drilling
site will be approved at
the discretion of staff,
or something like that.
I'll go back to the Eagle
Mountain Lake language and
try to draw from that.

MR. MONTGOMERY: We'll default
to the Angelo rule.

MR. HOLMES: How many mineral
acres are we talking about
at Sheldon?

MR. BAUER: About 2,000.

MR. FITZSIMONS: That's
significant.

MR. BAUER: We lease this — it
was nominated for lease
a year ago. Four tracts,
a lesser amount, and the
developer had the ability
to only lease one of those,
so he went offsite and felt
he could recover his minerals
from one of those four tracts.
You know, it's been a successful
operation there. The nominee
for this tract this time
is basically wanting to
do seismic, and we have
had, as a policy going back
to the 70s, on minerals
that we own, we don't provide
the opportunity to explore
unless they lease the minerals.
That gives us the opportunity
to have that bid every time.

So we're still proceeding
with that policy. So it's
anticipated that, with this
lease, and if this developer
gets the bid, then he will
do seismic and do his research,
and then he'll have to win
the bid, and then he'll
explore.

MR. MONTGOMERY: One more
thought. Commissioner Henry,
on Sheldon, we should be
so lucky to have this problem
to the extent we get really
lucky, have a lot of revenue,
and fully fund the capital
plan. May we say in that
provision, When the capital
plan is fully funded, the
revenue comes back to the
department, in the event
we got really lucky here.

MR. HENRY: I have no problem
with that.

MR. MONTGOMERY: Back to
precedence, whether we say
it's precedence or not.
It does start to set a precedent
of sorts.

MR. MONTGOMERY: So perhaps
not necessary to raise the
point. Okay. Any more discussion
on those two items, since
we've reopened those things?

(No response)

MR. MONTGOMERY: We will
put them on the agenda with
that modification. Is there
any more business before
this committee before we
adjourn for Executive Session?

(No response)

MR. MONTGOMERY: None. All
right, motion for adjournment.

MR. FITZSIMONS: Moved.

MR. HOLMES: Second.

MR. COOK: Actually, Phil,
you're recessing.

MR. MONTGOMERY: Excuse
me, excuse me. You're right.
We will now recess for Executive
Session. Therefore, I would
like to announce that, pursuant
to the requirements of Chapter
551 Government Code, referred
to as the Open Meetings
Law, an Executive Session
will be held at this time
for the consideration of
Section 551072, the Texas
Open Meetings Act, regarding
real estate matters, including
general counsel's advice.
So we'll adjourn for that
purpose.

(Whereupon, at 12:30 p.m.,
the meeting was adjourned.)

C E R T I F I C A T E

MEETING OF: Texas Parks
and Wildlife Commission

Conservation Committee

LOCATION: Austin, Texas

DATE: January 28, 2004

I do hereby certify that
the foregoing pages, numbers
1 through 24, inclusive,
are the true, accurate,
and complete transcript
prepared from the verbal
recording made by electronic
recording by Penny Bynum
before the Texas Parks and
Wildlife Commission.